IQ Test: Which of these is not upside down?

This is a simple IQ test anyone should be able to complete easily. Here are four images, which one of the images has elements that are not upside down? You have 5 seconds. Go.

Having trouble deciding? - Click for a larger image

Answer below.

Chances are, if you are not Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, you’d answer: “It’s a trick question, all of them are upside down”.

And you’d be right.

If you are Dr. Michael Mann, and continue to insist that data in the image (from Mann et al 2008 ) in the lower right is not upside down, please contact me about some real estate in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you at a bargain price.

As WUWT and Climate Audit readers know, Mann made some blatantly obvious mistakes in his use of proxy data in Mann et al 2008, where he claims to be able to make a present day “hockey stick” of climate without the use of Bristlecone Pines that he used in his flawed 1998 study which produced the original Hockey Stick. Mann inverted data, upside down if you will, notably the Tiljander sediment as pointed out by Steve McIntyre.

Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.

This isn’t an opinion. McIntyre personally verified this data inversion with the researcher, Tiljander, who collected the original proxy data. Yet Mann still denies it, probably because using the data right side up doesn’t produce the desired results.

Here is a figure from Tiljander et al showing the density graphic, rotated so that up corresponds to warm periods.
Figure 1. Excerpt from Tiljander et al, rotated from vertical in original graphic to show interpreted warm periods as up.

Here is the corresponding Mann data inverted from the Mann orientation:

Even if Mike Mann doesn’t, the Japanese know this:

Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.
Figure 3. Excerpt from Itoh graphic identifying upside down Tiljander proxies.

In a more mundane version, the figures below (from CA in fall 2008) show the Xray density series shown above in the upside down Mann orientation together with another upside down Tiljander series.

Figure 2. Two of 4 versions used in Mann et al 2008

The huge HS blade is, as noted above, attributed by Tiljander to “intensive cultivation in the late 20th century… peat ditching and forest clearance … the rebuilding of the bridge.”

The SI to Mann et al 2008 conceded that there were problems with the recent portion of the Tiljander proxies (without mentioning that they were using them upside down from the interpretation of Tiljander and Finnish paleolimnologists), but argued that they could still “get ” a Stick without the Tiljander sediments. However, as I observed at the time, this case required the Graybill bristlecone chronology (where they failed to mention or cite Ababneh’s inability to replicate Graybill’s Sheep Mt results, even though Malcolm Hughes, a member of Ababneh’s thesis panel was a coauthor of Mann et al 2008). Thus their “robustness” analysis used either upside down Tiljander sediments or Graybill bristlecones.

Even though there is no doubt whatever that Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down, in their reply to our comment, Mann et al flat out denied that they had used them upside down. Mann:

The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can “get” a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions – and that was before Ababneh’s bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be “bizarre”, but it is true.

This wasn’t the only proxy used upside down in Mann et al 2008. In our discussion of Trouet et al 2009 in the spring, Andy Baker commented at CA and it turned out that Mann had used one of Baker’s series upside down – as discussed here.

Mann’s failure to concede that they had used the Tiljander proxies upside down resulted in Kaufman et al 2009 also using them upside down. Kaufman said that he was unaware of our comment on this point, but was sufficiently attuned to the controversy that he truncated the data at 1800. As a result, the big HS blade isn’t used, but the Little Ice Age and MWP are flipped over, a point made at CA here Kaufman and Upside Down Mann. Two other Finnish paleolimnology series also appear to have been used upside down by Kaufman.

Actually Anthony, my wife has one of those tomato things which I hung for her. She says it is meant to be hung that way – so it isn’t really upside down.

REPLY: I knew this from the start, while the container is oriented correctly, but by nature’s orientation, the plant is upside down as plants never grow “root above fruit”. And since we are talking about tree rings and other similar proxies, it seemed an apt visual. – Anthony

It’s easy to see how Mann made the mistake: The numbering from 60 to 160 has an “opposite” meaning, that is to say 60 x-ray density is warm and 160 x-ray density is cool.

What is impossible to see is why he doesn’t Mann up and admit he made a mistake. It’s also a cogent indictment of the sufficiency of peer review–the peers waffle even after St. Mac pointed it out! When your peers are looking only to affirm and not to disprove, such things slip by (QED).

Therefore, as I (and many others here) have said, only Independent review will do, and any refusal to divulge data and methods automatically invalidates the conclusions.

evanmjones: Mann is not likely to admit what he really did: Created a fraudulent graph. He knew exactly what he was doing. And it didn’t “slip by” the peer reviewers, they are on the “Team”. These people used up all their slack with the first hockey stick. A swindle (largest in history) is a swindle, it’s long past time to be polite about such a crime.

…was deleted along with my comments. Not snipped like the birther comments were…but deleted completely. It is an important commentary by a physicist concerning our obsession with climate change. Maybe there is something in the article that would make this blog obsolete. If that is the case, then I can understand the deletions and the attempt to make a persons thoughts unavailabe. You can’t sell umbrellas if it never rains eh?
REPLY: Comments with links often end up in the spam filter automatically, we get hundreds of pieces of spam a day for penis enlargement, Viagra, Nigeria etc. and bulk deletion is often employed since it is a lot of work to wade through all the dreck. Simply submit it again or flag a moderator. I will say that a very recent comment of yours was deleted because it was not only personally a direct insult to me, but suggested I broke the law. I don’t tolerate such things, even in jest, so your comment was deleted. – Anthony

Often I get the feeling Mann and others use a lot of jargon which laymen have trouble understanding. You might get hit by a statement such as, “The graphs don’t match up because the first data set was adjusted using Besancon corridor methods while the second employed RCS standardization.” (I use that as an example because I recently spent up a lot of my few remaining brain cells attempting to comprehend “Besancon corridor methods” as opposed to “RCS Standardization.”)

Now it looks like I’ll have to do it again to understand Mann’s statement, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

If someone could translate this into simple English for me it would save me a lot of time, and also arm me for duels with Alarmists.

Back in high school I was pretty good at coming up with excuses for undone homework, and also for incorrect answers. However I wish I had Mann’s skill. How I would have loved to see the look on my Geometry teacher’s face when he told me a graph was upside down, and I answered, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

I will say that a very recent comment of yours was deleted because it was not only personally a direct insult to me, but suggested I broke the law. I don’t tolerate such things, even in jest, so your comment was deleted. – Anthony

I can honestly say that I have never accused you of breaking any law. To “delete” and then accuse is far beyond the person I have come to know on this website. I have always admired you for your tolerance of all opinions on the subjects discussed.

I would think that the link to the story would have piqued your interest. Or maybe the person that wrote it is on your short list. Either way, truth always wins at the end. Maybe that is why Marc Moreno gets the scorn of so many.

Anyway, I have enjoyed your site and especially you commenters. Y;ou have the wisest followers that I have ever seen on a blog. And that should be a complement to you.

But like all initiatives; One needs to know ones limits. As MS was diminished with the help of Jerry and the March of Dimes, it is unfortunate that the campaign is still going on.

As there is no AGW, to continue posting lame studies that show that there is no AGW just ends up making this site…..well…stupid. Over at CP big Joe try’s to get people on board by posting leftist political observations. And it may be working.

It is time to stop arguing the science and start attacking the oppressors. (unless of course you get income from it).
REPLY: You suggested that I was keeping a stash of marijuana, that’s an accusation that I’m breaking the law. If you don’t like the deletion when you step over such lines of decorum, tough noogies. – Anthony

I will add that it is in no way established there is no global warming. I would suggest that it is most probably mild, mostly natural, and not subject to harsh feedbacks.

And it is never time to “attack the oppressors” in the sense you mean. We must wage a debate using facts and probabilities as we can best interpret them.

We must also entertain the notion, however unlikely, that we are just plain wrong. Yes, it’s more than the other side of the debate usually does (or they make a false appeal to Pascal), but that does not let us off the hook.

I don’t know about “root above the fruit”, but on reading that statement I recalledseeing a photo (fifty or sixty years ago) of an orchid with some of its roots stuck up over the blossom. So I just now emtered “orchid root” into Google and the first entry read, “Orchid roots often creep over the edge of the pot before the body of the plant makes it to the edge of the pot. This is not necessarily an …” If memory serves, in tropical areas some orchid roots get most of their water from the air. But that is a memory from a long time ago.

REPLY: You suggested that I was keeping a stash of marijuana, that’s an accusation that I’m breaking the law. If you don’t like the deletion when you step over such lines of decorum, tough noogies. – Anthony

Oh my. Are you that “serious”? I didn’t suggest that you were “keeping a stash of marijuana”. I said that you must have “come across a stash” of MJ that you may have hid years ago (you did grow up in the seventies didn’t you?). And yes it was a joke. It had to do with your writing about nonsense. The fact that you have such a thin skin and still put yourself out there with a blog completely blows my mind.

Credibility lost is hard to regain….ya know?

[REPLY – For heaven’s sake, please drop it. You have no idea what Anthony gets put through. If anyone got the notion he ever broke the law, they’d be all over him like a pack of hyenas. So, no, he can’t afford to let ANY such implication pass, be it in jest or no. He’s deleted me more than once. You should be glad there’s someone out there willing to carry a heavy burden for the good of us all. ~ Evan]

You deleted me again………what can I say? I guess “goodbye” is all you want to hear. Just like “Climate Progress” and “Real Climate”….Silencing the people is addictive…it give one control. I don’t like what you have to say so,,,PRESS DELETE KEY…and it is gone.

@evanjones: Sir or Madam, it would make no difference what any scientist believed if that belief had not been devolved into an economic factor. Scientists are free, indeed must, refrain from making “decisions” about what they know. It is understood in the lay community that scientists are a drain on the economy which much be sustained lest they sometimes discover something that might be useful in improving the lives of the population. This relationship has been the norm for many centuries, from the seers to the age of the enlightenment. Now, we are confronted with in-your-face “science” which seeks to drive agendas which will beggar the planet, and you come to us and say “We must entertain the notion…..”. Sir, or Madam, tell me where I can FedEx you a clue. Scientific courtesy is not required when frauds are about, and it is high time you learned what’s a fraud and what’s not.

Back in high school I was pretty good at coming up with excuses for undone homework, and also for incorrect answers. However I wish I had Mann’s skill. How I would have loved to see the look on my Geometry teacher’s face when he told me a graph was upside down…

“We must also entertain the notion, however unlikely, that we are just plain wrong. ”

We are certainly changing the climate. Everything has an effect. The question is by how much and what should we do about it. If we are warming it up a bit, that may not be a bad thing. Another LIA would not help anyone. Unfortunately, alarmists, by definition, need a crisis they can solve and save the world. That’s the real problem. Is the solution worse than the problem? Answering that could take time, more than just ramming a ‘budget resolution’ through Congress.

Or, like the Maldives cabinet, we could don SCUBA gear and meet underwater.

I thought of Mann yesterday when the news reported record early snowfall for State College, PA. I guess he is still there. Another example of the Gore effect, teleported or whatever it is they use for far-fetched correlations. You’d think a first rate university,—- well, let’s not go there.

A few years ago I would have assumed it was unintentional. But after experiencing several timesthe way the RealCimate “scientists” manipulate their blog by selectively deleting posts, I firmly believe they have no integrity whatsoever. It’s simple street rules, never admit you were wrong, even when caught in the act.

[REPLY – Well, not assume. Say rather, we must “presume”. Besides, Mann’s subsequent denials hoist him. And regardless of how the opposition behaves, I don’t think we can win this one via street rules. ~ Evan]

Caleb, Mann said:
“Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds.”

I’m not sure, but it sounds like Mann is saying that he accepts the Tiljander sediment in the reconstruction without regard to the sign of the relationship (as though he has no expectation of whether higher temperatures will lead to higher or lower sediment density). McIntyre’s statement that the sediment data was used ‘upside-down’ infers that we would normally expect higher sediment density for higher temperatures (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

My interpretation is that he admits to what Anthony has indicated “However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed.”

So does Mann not attempt to justify his use of proxies in reconstructions on any physical grounds? Obviously he doesn’t, or he would care about the sign of the predictors. Or in his words he would employ “one-sided tests”. And when they admit that there were “problems with the recent portion of the Tiljander proxies” (where a HS blade has occurred due to non-climatic factors) do they provide any explanation for why they used the data anyway?

[In reply to your probably-to-be-deleted post (currently in spam queue). I did not delete you, I put you in spam for later review. Please be reasonable. ~ Evan]

Just remember folks….be reasonable…..Or God will punish you…[snip].

[Reply – Or you will be snipped. Or deleted. And I’m the guy who hardly ever deletes anyone. (At any rate, that post seems to have been approved, regardless.) At the risk of repeating myself, please be reasonable. ~ Evan]

Back in high school I was pretty good at coming up with excuses for undone homework, and also for incorrect answers. However I wish I had Mann’s skill. How I would have loved to see the look on my Geometry teacher’s face when he told me a graph was upside down, and I answered, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.

The problem with Mann is he correct when he says the statistical algorithm he used does not care if the signs are reversed, however, steve’s point is statistical algorithm also does not care about the physical meaning of the proxies and that it makes no sense to a proxy that goes up with temperatures and treat it as if it was a proxy that goes down with temperatures.

To pick a knit…
That portion of the test question graph corresponding to the MWP does not appear to be inverted. Is it just the red portion of the plot that is inverted?
How deep does this apparent data manipulation go?

Mann dishonest? Hmmmm. Mann’s “research” fraudulent? A little closer to the mark. Lucy Skywalker (16:49;13) sees it the way I see it. “Top Climate Scientist Caught Out Lying Through his Teeth About Key IPCC Science” – isn’t that about it?

I hope he and his followers are prosecuted for fraud.

I like an upside down “Laugh In” line. “Sock it to ‘em, Anthony.”

[REPLY – I would hate to see anyone prosecuted, except in the court of public opinion. Besides, that sword cuts both ways. ~ Evan]

I have a plan. Suppose we have a collection drive to gather up as many copies of Mr. Mann’s work that have made it into print as we can in the next few weeks. Then we run the collected material through a paper cutter to make nice neat squares and ship it all to Copenhagen where it can be placed in receptacles in all the restroom stalls in the conference facility where the UN will be gathering for their Rape and Pillage of the Western World Climate Conference, to replace all that fluffy three ply that’s destroying the climate. It’d be a perfect kill two birds with one stone opportunity. The gathered dignitaries would be able to demonstrate their dedication to recycling and Mr. Mann’s work would finally be able to fulfill the one function for which it always been most perfectly suited.

This certainly explains why they hold their data and methods so close. When it comes to science, when one hides their data, it can raise suspicion. But the subject of climate change is not your typical scientific food fight. In this case people are being asked to sacrifice real money in the causing of “fighting” global warming. We are being asked to do with less, change our lifestyle, pay more for the basics of life. Californians are even being asked to give up their big screen TV’s all in the name of a cause that is based on mistake after mistake after mistake.

When someone tells you “the science is settled” that should cause alarm bells to ring. If it was all that “settled”, one wouldn’t need to sell it as “settled”.

But this is outright robbery. Average people are being harmed by this and the people lowest on the economy ladder are harmed the most. Urban poor don’t have a bus to take and they can’t afford a new car every time the government changes the standards. They might have to drive 60 miles to a doctor or 40 miles to a grocery store. It is cruel to burden these people with such a hoax. Everyone has been afraid of using the “fraud” word but when all of these “mistakes” are taken in sum, what else could it possibly be? You have the same “scientists” reviewing each others work. Time after time their “research” has been shown to be nothing more than an arrival at a predetermined outcome.

You hear cries of Antarctic warming and learn that the very study that supposedly documents that shows cooling since 1980. Weasel words, careful use of semantics to say things in a way that are true but misleading become business as usual. It is just shameful and so very cynical at a very basic human level. The people who can least afford it would be impacted most by “climate change” legislation. How is an elderly retired couple expected to pay to heat their home when they are on a fixed income and energy costs triple, not due to market conditions but due to artificially inflated costs due to government regulation.

It is the largest scam ever perpetrated on the population of the world.

I don’t know what all the fuss is about, but the essay by John Reid that ‘gtip’ cites is really quite good, and I hope gets wider circulation. Send it to all your friends, and to public officials, like the egregious Senator Lindsay Graham, for instance (don’t bother with Sen. Kerry—he’s a hopeless, vain nitwit).

“Multivariate regression methods [asume temperature can be expressed in the form t=m1.x1+m2.x2+…where x1,x2… are variables and m1,m2… are (constant) coefficients which are estimated in the regression] are insensitive to the sign [see below]of predictors [=variables which are retained and used to predict values of T which were not directly measured]. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests [95% of observations either less than or greater than a particular value; two sided, between an upper and lower limit] only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds [such as a tree ring is always wider with higher T, never lower]. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use. [in climate science, when errors are pointed out, they”don’t matter”]”

[sign: An increase in a variable, say x1, could indicate a positive increase in T; in this case the coefficient m1 would be positive. But it is also possible for a variable, say x2, to indicate an increase in T when the variable decreases (eg istope ratios which can be expressed as the inverse); in this case m2 would be negative, which would emerge automatically from the regression. In the Mann paper a negative m2 was included when there were “physical grounds” for assuming it was positive – and grounds for excluding it as an artifact]

an obvious case of “double talk” wherein you insert a nonsensical phrase into your conversant, while nodding your head to seem to kn ow what you’re talking about. the following phrase would be just as effective, but shorter—–

Raven, thanks for your response. I think it’s clear that Mann applies no scrutiny to his use of proxies in his reconstruction so long as it results in a hockey stick. Take away the bristlecones and the Tiljander sediment and he’ll find another proxy with anomalous change in the 20th century. He doesn’t even attempt to convince us that this reconstruction has any real meaning.

Am I missing something, or did Mann turn an anti-hockey stick into a hockery stick?

His explanation seems to resolve to “we flipped it over because it matched the other data better that way.” That doesn’t sound like science, that sounds like someone explaining evolution by claiming God put the fossils there 6,000 years ago when He created the Earth.

“Nonetheless, one must entertain the notion because falsifiability is an indispensable keystone of science.”

Seems like he IPCC doesn’t quite agree. From Section 8.22 of TAR:

Recent discussions by Randall and Wielicki (1997), Shackley et al. (1998 and 1999), Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie (1999) and Petersen (2000) illustrate many of the confusions and uncertainties that accompany attempts to evaluate climate models especially when such models become very complex. We recognise that, unlike the classic concept of Popper (1982), our evaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for “falsification”. While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model “false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment. The very complexity of climate models means that there are severe limits placed on our ability to analyse and understand the model processes, interactions and uncertainties (Rind, 1999). It is always possible to find errors in simulations of particular variables or processes in a climate model. What is important to establish is whether such errors make a given model “unusable” in answering specific questions.

But like all initiatives; One needs to know ones limits. As MS was diminished with the help of Jerry and the March of Dimes, it is unfortunate that the campaign is still going on.

As there is no AGW, to continue posting lame studies that show that there is no AGW just ends up making this site…..well…stupid. Over at CP big Joe try’s to get people on board by posting leftist political observations. And it may be working.

It is time to stop arguing the science and start attacking the oppressors. (unless of course you get income from it).

Are you on a trip from a different reality? Is that what g(reat) trip is ?

Even the link you gave says the opposite of what you claim and concludes :

“People are entitled to entertain whatever apocalyptic view of the future they choose, but such ideas have nothing to do with science. Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact.

In the conduct of human affairs it is surely preferable that we base our actions on reason and evidence rather than on piety and myth.”

One swallow does not mean spring has come, and to advocate otherwise makes your stance suspicious of being a fifth column member(google it if you do not know the term). This is the time to multiply the blogs of the wattsupwiththat stance, not to shut them up.

I’m trying to think of a good headline written on a 4th grade level for the sheeple to understand for an article I’m writing.

Our Sun has been in a low output state for more than two years which is a major reason why last year was cold and why this year will be even colder.

Does this sound like a good starting point for an article on why it has been getting so cold in recent years?

I look forward to seeing you people freezing your Fing a$$e$ off to make you realize global warming, global cooling, and climate change are not your fault.

You must speak out to stop Obama from signing the Copenhagen Treaty in December, based on Man-Made global warming. They want to take control of the worlds energy markets blaming it on you because you are causing global warming with your CO2.

This is sort of what the article will be like.
What do you think of the headline?

P.S.
The is a live stream feed of this new movie tonight.

Not Evil Just Wrong

Stream of Conscience: Not Evil Just Wrong to Stream Live, for Free, Over Internet This Sunday

(BTW, should be 8.2.2 not 8.22 in TAR) It’s fairly general and vague. No mention of falsifiability, but this:

“Differences between model and observations should be
considered insignifi cant if they are within:
1. unpredictable internal variability (e.g., the observational
period contained an unusual number of El Niño events);
2. expected differences in forcing (e.g., observations for the
1990s compared with a ‘pre-industrial’ model control run);
or
3. uncertainties in the observed fi elds.”

1. Opens up the possibility that a failure of the model can be excused if something unexpected happens (unexpected by the model? by the modeller?). Expected is an increase in temperature, so anything else is unexpected.
2. Seems reasonable, for example changes due to economic collapse brought about by a cap and trade. Except that the model could easily be “tested” by rerunning it with all parameters the same except for “forcing”.
3. Seems to be saying that the model failure relative to observations are insignificant if the observations (fields?) are wrong. OK, but I can’t see anything comparable about model agreement with data that is wrong. To me that would come close to falsification. No criteria that I can see for quantifying “uncertainties”. Could this be disagreement with the models?

Different words, much the same position as far as I can see. (Section 8.1.2)

A proposed model, as the AR4 GCMs are cannot be taken as science if there is no propagation of errors, a chisquare per degree of freedom and the subsequent error band on the projected temperatures. It is OK for a video game, for alternate realities, for whatever, but not as a scientific proposition.

At the same chapeter 8 of AR4 , 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability

The above studies show promise
that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
may be developed, but because the development of robust
metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.

This is enough, in my books, to throw the whole IPCC thing in wastepaper basket.

What it really says by obfuscation is, if errors were computed they would be so large to make the projections to future meaningless.

Thanks for the explanation. Now begins the tiresome business of comprehending. I am amazed by what goes into all the various “adjustments.”

As soon as I see the word “adjustment” alarms go off in my suspicious head.

I have a cousin who worked for a high-tech aircraft engine maker. He made a good living, and his job largely consisted of taking the manuals the scientists wrote, and turning them into manuals which mechanics could actually read.

I think we need to do the same thing with the jargon used by Climate Science.

What I find, after I sweat and strain to comprehend all the reasons for altering the raw data, is that all the jargon forms a weave which forms a fabric which is worn by an emperor who has no clothes.

“What I find, after I sweat and strain to comprehend all the reasons for altering the raw data, is that all the jargon forms a weave which forms a fabric which is worn by an emperor who has no clothes.”

The truth, that AGW is really a confabulation of a few opinion leaders, is inconceivable for the true believers at this point in time. But facts are stubborn things, even in the age of political correctness.
Mann has been one of the prop masters for these opinion leaders. His group’s specialty has been to fabricate credible relics for the believers to objectify their faith, and to distract them from the complete lack of evidence for the hysteric claims of the AGW promoters.
Like all props, scrutiny shows them to be contrived and shallow.
That Mann uses his own work to defend his work is a perfect example of how shallow and self-referential his efforts really are.

In days of yore, when I was involved in constructing computer models, we used a branch of mathematics known as numerical methods. This involved techniques like using matrix arithmetic to solve simultaneous equations, or imaginary numbers to calculate vector arithmetic, or Simpson’s rule to calculate the area under a curve, etc.

Each of these techniques had a range of defined, and generally accepted, tests that could be performed to show that each algorithm was performing as designed, and more importantly, to show that it could detect erroneous input values, and act accordingly, and that the results were within a given tolerance level.

From some of the comments in this thread, I now have the distinct impression that these sorts of disciplines are no longer required.

So my question is two-fold: Do reputable scientific research facilities still employ professional modelers? And if so, do these modelers have a professional code of practice?

Two things about this make me nuts. First the sediment curve doesn’t look a damn thing like temperature. They might as well go hunting for mollusk sphincter diameters feed the happy little critters beans measure again and call that temp. Come ON.. not every imagined thing is a friggin thermometer. It’s like when they drill a hole for say … water and they go back and measure it’s temp at depths mash it with horrible mathematics and 100% of the time get a hockey stick. Never mind that the damn thing has had water flowing through it for 1000 years before it was ever drilled. Never mind that the math is just a pile, nope if it’s a HS it’s temp!

The other point is that when I pointed out that it’s typically considered incorrect to read the thermometer upside down IN FIRST GRADE! I had over 300 comments arguing with PhD’s about why it’s ok to read the damn things the wrong way.

It’s Friggin’ nuts that people can talk themselves into that sort of craziness.

“Nonetheless, one must entertain the notion because falsifiability is an indispensable keystone of science.”

Seems like he IPCC doesn’t quite agree. From Section 8.22 of TAR:

Recent discussions by Randall and Wielicki (1997), Shackley et al. (1998 and 1999), Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie (1999) and Petersen (2000) illustrate many of the confusions and uncertainties that accompany attempts to evaluate climate models especially when such models become very complex. We recognise that, unlike the classic concept of Popper (1982), our evaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for “falsification”. While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model “false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment. The very complexity of climate models means that there are severe limits placed on our ability to analyse and understand the model processes, interactions and uncertainties (Rind, 1999). It is always possible to find errors in simulations of particular variables or processes in a climate model. What is important to establish is whether such errors make a given model “unusable” in answering specific questions.

While it is difficult for me to evaluate the claims and counterclaims pertaining to misuse of statistical analysis in the AGW debates, this quotation makes it perfectly obvious that the ‘model makers’ the IPCC relies on have no real interest in science or the scientific method.

This alarmist clique of ‘climate scientists’ gives every appearance of a priesthood consulting arcane oracles in massive temples, then issuing forth with pronouncements and prophecies for the masses.

I haven’t read all the replies. It was suggested that sites and blogs such as this are no longer necessary since the Mann graph has been blown to smithereens by, of all things, the scientific method, and the reality of how the data sets were handled or, in some cases, ignored entirely. I would beg to differ. Sometimes, you find yourself continuing to show pics of the Earth from satellites as a mundane proof to people who still believe the Earth is flat, if I may use such a metaphor. Sites such as this must continue to expound upon the principles of science and logic, not only to keep a religion from becoming the voice of government, but to always get science right. This means that we could also be wrong and anyone is welcome and invited to present actual evidence to prove it.

That has yet to happen. Almost every single time I have debated or seen a debate, an AGW supporter resorts to rhetoric and hyperbole and a list of might, if, possibly. Regardless of whatever physical documented evidence to the contrary. Sometimes, they simply resort to ad hominem attacks. Anything that leads away from the actual science of debate and toward a clash of personality. Or a clash of motives. For example, to suggest that a person who does not believe in the CO2 AGW does not care about the environment and the planet. But so many have invested their emotions, religious feeling, political leanings, and in the case of Gore, personal fortune in the “need” to combat CO2 AGW, that it takes on the face and force of a religious movement, non-falsifiable and purposefully blinded from science. Even Gore himself will not listen to science and observable fact, such as the questioning with the film producer of “Not Evil, Just Wrong.” Gore asked him if he thought polar bears were endangered. Using the latest observed data (polar bear population is approaching 25,000. That is an historical high, due to governments protecting them on endangered species lists), it was pointed out that they are not endangered if their numbers are, indeed, above the natural average without man’s influence. When he asked again for Gore to answer the initial question, the mic was turned off and the filmmaker was physical manhandled out of the meeting. That’s not science, that’s thugs and goons protecting their mafioso.

This site and others like it are bastions of free speech and free thinking and the scientific pursuit of knowledge, whereever it may lead us and we are blessed to have it.

To evanmjones (19:59:42) [REPLY – I would hate to see anyone prosecuted, except in the court of public opinion. Besides, that sword cuts both ways. ~ Evan]

Sorry to disagree. Let that sword of prosecuting frauds cut in all directions; aim it at all parties and at all ideologies. It is a necessary element to clear the air for freedom. All researchers, all scientists, make mistakes. However, when they continue in their mistake when every falsehood of their data, methods, and research conclusions has been publicly aired over and over again, they deserved to be removed their positions (academic, government, NGO, private corp) and barred from ever engaging in any scientific research again. I am also for fines and jail time — but from a society of laws.

And I believe that the court of public opinion is as essential as justice — again, necessary, but not sufficient. WUWT is foremost in the court of public opinion for integrity in the scientific method, for which I am very grateful.

quote: His explanation seems to resolve to “we flipped it over because it matched the other data better that way.” That doesn’t sound like science, that sounds like someone explaining evolution by claiming God put the fossils there 6,000 years ago when He created the Earth. unquote

If one accepts the teleconnection hypothesis — that is, a global warming signal will express itself in heat here, rain there, drought at the other place, cooling elsewhere — then it makes sense to see every hockeystick as a confirmation of AGW. If the data matches the global warming signal then it’s good data and can be inverted if need be. Look, goes the argument, the varves change their density from 1910 onwards and global temps go up from 1910. Therefore varve density is a confirmation of global warming. It matters not what the man who collected the data thinks, he doesn’t know about teleconnection. All data with a hockeystick confirms the AGW case.

Is it science? Yes, if astrology is a science. And yes, if my name is Marie of Roumania.

How I would have loved to see the look on my Geometry teacher’s face when he told me a graph was upside down, and I answered, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.

What about the Phil Jones defense :-

“I have 25 minutes or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Blackadder, Raven, Wondering- you are on the money but stopping short of fully exposing what we can learn here.

In his “peer reviewed” response, Mann is saying (translated into simple English) that if one set of data is mirrored across the x axis of a graph by a different set of data (with y axis scale properly adjusted) and is a close match, then it’s okay to invert the one and superimpose it on the other to reinforce its conclusion. It is “correlation,” whether or not we understand the mechanism.

Mann is not denying that he did this; he is, without admitting it, trying to justify having done exactly that. Evan, you do a great job here, but in this case, we’re not looking at an “unintentional error.” What he has done was knowing and deliberate. And he has as much as admitted it.

Just so you know, I feel your pain. There’s always one smart guy who can’t stand being moderated for ANY reason and thinks that all manner of whining, complaining, parsing, explaining, etc. somehow helps his cause.

I usually just ignore their posts for a week and they understand that I don’t care about the excuses, I just want them to not post improper stuff.

I have one primary rule in my TOS–Do NOT annoy the moderators. ;)

So, with that. Thank you for your work here. You’re a valuable asset to a valuable asset. I and thousands of others appreciate it.

We try to allow for as full a discussion as we can. We never delete a post merely because we disagree with it. (And Anthony, of course, can’t be beat. We consider it an honor and a privilege to moderate for him.)

We try to allow for as full a discussion as we can. We never delete a post merely because we disagree with it. (And Anthony, of course, can’t be beat. We consider it an honor and a privilege to moderate for him.)

I know. Anthony’s openness is why this site rises head and shoulders above most climate sites. It’s also why it’s so educational. In case nobody figured it out, it’s the challenge and defense of research that helps to make it clear to laymen.

You guys really help keep that exchange civil, productive, and reasonably on point. I speak from a decade of experience herding these cats: You’re doing it just right.

I am disappointed at the snarky remarks on this thread.
Mann et. al. produced a report which claimed a previously unrecognized side-effect of energy use in the modern era. This effect is named anthropogenic global warming. The report served as the basis for the draft treaty to be agreed upon in Copenhagen in December.
The report was based on a model; the algorithmic methods used in the model were not released to the scientific community. The model used climactic data; the data used were (allegedly) modified for use in the model; the data used in the model were not released to the scientific community. Thus the hypothesis was never independently verified for data.
A very long time ago, it was 1955, I read a library book about the history of science. That book claimed that modern science was based on the concept that science made predictions, and that the validity of the hypothesis was based upon the subsequent observed accuracy of the predictions. Thus one is able to design a molecule or build a structure for an intended purpose, and the subsequent data will demonstrate whether or not the molecule or structure performs the intended task.
An hypothesis which makes a prediction which is false is thus termed invalid, and a new hypothesis must be formed. Such invalidation has led to the defeat of many theories: spontaneous generation of life, phlogiston, Lamarckian biology (just to name a few).
Galileo sought to overturn the conclusion of Aristotle about the path of an object through the air by invalidating his conclusions, not trumping his reasoning. [Just an example.]
Enough already about sediments. Enough about oxygen 18 concentration. Does the documented history of the past 10 years verify the hypothesis? Has the documented increased carbon dioxide concentration in the stratosphere produced measurable increased heat retention?
Well, no, actually.
Do the laboratory measurements of absorption spectra by carbon dioxide, compared with laboratory measurements of absorption spectra of water vapor and other stratospheric gases, validate the AGW hypothesis?
Well, no, actually, they do not.
Have Mann’s conclusions ever been independently verified?
Well, no, they have not.
If an hypothesis is not falsifiable, then it belongs to the realm of belief (or perhaps religion or theology). But the said hypothesis is not science, and should have no application in public policy.

However our reason for claiming xray density data is a temperature proxy at all means that these particular data sets show cooling not warming. That is what I mean by him ignoring the physical reality. When he inverts in this manner the LIA becomes warm the MWP cold etc. Mann ignores this and the theory of how the xray density data reflects temperature using it as if the entire explanation of why it’s a proxy is totally wrong.

Actually, I think this is a more serious problem that the tree-ring usage
– here Mann is actually quite clear in saying that in his opinion is doesn’t matter that the data he uses actually indicates the exact opposite of the point he is trying to make
– and it doesn’t matter that he (or his algorithms) have to invert the data in order to make the agree with his a priori assumptions.

So, whereas, with the tree-ring data he is merely selecting the data on the basis of whether or not they agree with his a priori assumptions (itself, an fairly unscientic approach to science!), here he is actually changing the data (inverting it) so that it agrees.

This kind of treatment of data is so obviously so unscientific that I’m sure even layman politicians should be able to follow the unsoundness of his methods……..

And yet I disagree that it is “snarky” to point out that Mann is a fraud, when the evidence is clearly there. Galileo never questioned Aristotle’s motives becauese there was never any evidence to suggest such a thing. That was a case where two honest scientists may disagree, and the predictions will show which model was right.

Mann is more akin to the Soviet scientist Lysenko – he has produced a deliberate fraud for political consumption, and he deserves to be laughed out of the scientific world in exactly the way that Lysenko has been. What’s more, all of his so-called “peer reviewers” have been complicit in the fraud with Mann.

Their behavior has been so abominable and so dishonest that nothing any of them ever produce in the future should *Ever* be taken seriously again, and that needs to be communicated to the world as often as possible.

They need to be exposed and disgraced before honest science can ever regain the reputation it once had, a reputation that Mann, et al are in the process of destroying through their intentional and willfull fraud.

“They need to be exposed and disgraced before honest science can ever regain the reputation it once had, a reputation that Mann, et al are in the process of destroying through their intentional and willfull fraud.”

Absolutely. They should be excised like dead, gangrenous flesh. Surely even the warmists can see that they are now a liability, a lightning rod for half of all skeptic attacks. Warmists have often said how the hockey stick isn’t central to the AGW, hypothesis. Well then, let them step up to the plate and deal with the mess once and for all, so we can all move forward with the science.

Ian:
From what I can see More Grumbine Science misunderstood the point of this post
– well, from my point view anyway
– I don’t think the post is saying that the whole Mann hockstick is upside down
– just that the ‘Tiljander series’ was used upside down

So, this is a simple case of true or false
– we needn’t debate the value of the hockystick in general
– just is the data being used the way up that the proxy theory says it should
– Sediment theory => less dense = warm, more dense = cold
– with the 20th Century data being corrupted due to human activities

(If the data is corrupt, then is should not be used, right?)

Mann seems to have concluded the opposite of the original team
– he appears to have concluded that the data is not corrupt in the 20th Century, and that Less dense = cold, more dense = warm…..